Can you please provides citations to the "agreed to stop" claim?

Shachar

But this just means one thing. Google aren't within their safe harbor during the entire first stage of the process.

If, instead or in addition to disputing, you also file claim against both for smeering your name, Google can't claim that the DMCA gives them immunity.

Shachar

A contract is binding once two things happen:
One party makes an offer
and
The other party accepts it.

There is no requirement for anything to be signed. As long as the registrar can prove that the you accepted their offer (say, by paying), and that you knew what the terms were (say, because they were posted on the web site, and linked to from the page in which you paid), you have a contract.

Now, obviously, in this case the terms were not available to you. Also, the advertisement is part of the registrar's offer, and is, therefor, as binding to it as the terms in the agreement. This entire thing is unethical, and at least seems to be illegal. Still, this is not because there is no contract.

And, again, IANAL.

Shachar

At least here (Israel, but it inherited most of its laws from English law), there are, broadly (IANAL) two kinds of contracts. Time limited contracts, where both sides are bound by it for the duration of the contract, and unlimited contracts. For the second type, each side may terminate the contract at any point, for whatever reason, resulting in no more sanctions than the other side not being bound by the contract any more.

Since a domain registration contract is time bound, automatic exit is not guaranteed by law.

Shachar

P.s.
Obviously, this is not a complete list. For example, there are also sales contracts, which fall under neither category. Like I said, IANAL. For services, however, the above two are what you get.

Sh.

Blowing up at Andrew Tridgdell after he "reverse engineered" (i.e. - sent "help" on a telnet connection) the bitkeeper protocol, causing bitkeeper to withdraw support from the kernel.

Personally, I think bitkeeper were just waiting for an excuse to do that. Their business justification was quickly eroding. The needs of the kernel and the needs of their commercial customers were drifting apart. Supporting the kernel was becoming a liability, rather than an asset, to them. That's also the reason, I think, that they were so quick to withdraw all support after such a minor infraction.

Shachar

Yeah. I don't see any difference between this objection, which the judge overruled, and Apple's objection in the previous trial, which the same judge accepted.

IANAL, but it seems the judge provided little enough explanation.

Shachar

In the previous case, Apple asked, and was awarded by the same judge, covering the Samsung logo on the TVs used to display evidence to the Jurors. The claim then was that the court use of Samsung products might be seen as an endorsement of the company. This is, substantially, the same claim now used by Samsung.

I have not seen the whole video. The parts I did see did not show the Apple logo prominently. If that is the case throughout, I think this decision is reasonable. This, assuming none of the products used are the same as the products around which this case revolves. I believe this is the case (I did not see an Apple logo in my skimming, and the products are macbooks, while this case is about phones).

If, however, the Apple logo was on screen, or the products do have an overlap, then I think that decision, particularly by that judge, is hypocritical and wrong.

Shachar

I think we need to cover what makes patents bad. One of the things that make software patents bad (only one of them) is the fact you can't be certain whether you infringe them, even when you have the patent right in front of you. This is due to ambiguities in the patent. You simply cannot know which way claim construction is going to go.

If you aim is not to infringe a patent, you must avoid the most broad interpretation the patent has, since you never know how that is going to be interpreted.

Back to our design patent. The bezel is clearly marked with a dotted line. To the best of my understanding, that means it is not a part of the patent. The same goes for the earphones jack location and the charging socket. Moving any of those around not will cause you to not infringe the patent. Probably. I think. To the best of my limited understanding.

Basilbrush is trying to claim that the aspect ratio, clearly part of the solid lines, is part of the patent. Just as clearly, however, Apple did not think so. That means that whether he (she?) is right or wrong is irrelevant. When you are trying to avoid infringement, you had !@$#%!@# better assume a different aspect ratio will not save you.

Which brings us back to the bezel. At trial, Apple has a clear interest to show the patent as being as narrow as possible, while still including whatever it is Samsung has done. Make the patent seem too broad, and the jury might think it is invalid. So it is entirely possible that Apple bringing up the bezel was a strategic move.

Of course, they are safe to bring it up as, at the point, they already knew what Samsung did and did not do. It is entirely possible^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlikely that, given other circumstances, Apple would have claimed that the bezel means nothing at all, but the color has to be different, or that the bezel and the color are both irrelevant, but having a logo would have changed everything. Apple's strategy during the trial is dictated by Samsung already past actions.

Discussing what a patent covers, however, pertains to future actions and future litigation. Combining all the different, often conflicting, ways to read this patent yields just one strategy to avoid infringement: don't use rounded corners.

So whether Basilbrush is right or not, the patent covers "hand held device with rounded corners" (the hand is marked with solid lines, so I think it is safe to say it is mandatory). Anything else is a risk.

Shachar

Then why did Apple think they had a chance to win? Why did the German judge, when confronted with Apple changing Samsung's tablet aspect ratio, not think they were falsifying evidence? Why didn't Samsung defense center around the aspect ratio?

It seems to me that a lot of people who know a lot more about the field than me (you haven't stated what your qualifications are, if any) do not agree with you.

Shachar

And I answer again:

In the most practical way. If you issue a device that has a different aspect ratio, you might still get sued (as Samsung has).

More generally, you need to be a patent lawyer in order to answer, in general, whether things like aspect ratio are part of the specific claims of a design patent. I am not a lawyer. Obviously, Apple's lawyers thought it is not.

If you know differently (maybe you are a patent lawyer), please do speak up. If not, please avoid re-asking the same question merely because you do not like the answer.

Shachar

In the practical way. Samsung were sued for violating this patent despite having a different aspect ratio. Obviously, Apple doesn't think the aspect ratio in any way limits the applicability of this patent.

The aspect ratio was so different that Apple felt the need to photoshop evidence to make the devices look more alike.

Shachar

Let me see.....

GP linked to the patent. The patent covers everything shown in the diagram that isn't excluded by means of being drawn in a dotted line. If you check the diagram, the only thing not dotted are the rounded corners and the curve on the back (which just means the "rounded corners" are 3D).

So, no. This design patent is solely about rounded corners.

Shachar

Windows, including the most up to date one, still have a 16 bit personality able to run DOS programs. This means there is something there that is able to catch int 21 and process it, as well as allow programs to direct interrupts.

While it is true that cmd.exe (as well as the black screen dumb terminal that it usually runs in) are not DOS, DOS is certainly still in there, somewhere.

Which is not to say that I think the "vulnerability" angle has any merit. Just that your statement isn't entirely true.

Shachar

Not necessarily.

In a study, patents were given placebo, and told what it was. They got specific instructions that these are just sugar pills, and that it doesn't really matter whether they take it or not. The pills were still as effective as placebo.

I am wondering why that research did not make more waves than it did, as it clearly solves placebo's greatest problem as treatment.

Shachar

As long as the research is valid and the conclusions correctly presented (which, in this case, they do not seem to have been), I don't care for the motive.

Shachar